From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6735 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2002 02:01:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6721 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2002 02:01:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jun 2002 02:01:26 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840CC3C96; Sat, 15 Jun 2002 22:01:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D0BF171.2030409@cygnus.com> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 19:01:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020613 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Seitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/MI] Event Records vs Commands References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00289.txt.bz2 > Hi, > > This is the promised gdbmi.texinfo proposal that I referred to in: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-06/msg00106.html > > This patch formalizes events in MI. Specifically, I propose to whack > notify-async-output from aync-record and add event-record to > out-of-band-record. Breakpoint events can occure ``asynchronously'': a shared library load might trigger the setting of a breakpoint; a user's breakpoint commands might change the state of a breakpoint and then continue. Hence, as far as I can tell you just want to ``notify-async-output''. > I've modified all the breakpoint command examples to reflect the fact that > breakpoint commands will no longer print information about the breakpoint. > Instead this information is retrieved from the event. For example: > > - old way > (gdb) > -break-insert main > ^done,bkpt={number="1",addr="0xdeadbeef",file="main.c",line="5"} > (gdb) > > - new way > (gdb) > -break-insert main > =breakpoint-create,number="1" > (gdb) I believe this is wrong. There should still be a ``^done''. > -break-info 1 > ^done,BreakpointTable={...} > I have completed the changes to MI to accomplish this, and I will submit > these patches once this is all approved. I plan to check this all into my > interpreter branch (kseitz_interps-20020528-branch) until everything > is finalized. I will then migrate the whole (approved) thing into cvs > head. Keep in mind that the examples are lifted from the testsuite. Given breakpoint output appears everywhere in the testsuite, the import is going to be a little large. There should still be a few things that can be cherry picked though - some of the testsuite shuffle for instance. > @example > -> -symbol-file xyz.exe > ! <- *breakpoint,nr="3",address="0x123",source="a.c:123" > <- (@value{GDBP}) > @end example > > --- 395,402 ---- > > @example > -> -symbol-file xyz.exe > ! <- =breakpoint-create,number="3" > ! <- ^done > <- (@value{GDBP}) > @end example If breakpoint-create included complete breakpoint information an additional roundtrip could be avoided. Is this significant? I suspect this is a question for some of the apple hackers as they would have a better feel for how critical this one is :-) Andrew